Hey! Lay off Chris Tomlin: A Response

Jonathan Aigner, a UMC music director and worship blogger, took on a reader recently. Quoting his reader, the anonymous "Glenn", Aigner fires back on Glenn's accusation that Aigner often unfairly takes shots at Chris Tomlin, one of America's modern leaders of music in worship.

Aigner often has a lot of smart things to say, particularly about theology in worship. That's convenient because that's literally the URL of his site.

Though I respect much of Aigner's work, I feel as if this time Aigner missed the mark. In what I can only imagine is a defensive work so as to continue his personal vendetta against Tomlin, Aigner inaccurately describes Tomlin's music, blindly points out the speck in Tomlin's eye, and in the process secures his readership in their own personal dislike of the modern worship scene.

Aigner organizes his thoughts by way of several key aspects of Tomlin's music. I'll do the same here.

Tomlin's Music Isn't For Congregational Singing

 I've many times over been led in singing by Chris Tomlin and those he's raised up as new leaders and songwriters. I also consider myself to be a student of the worship artists who are writing new music for the church. I, as a seminary graduate and music leader myself, think often about what I call the "sing-ability" of the music we lead with.

I'd argue that Tomlin's music is often melodically and rhythmically simpler than almost every other mainstream worship writer. My argument might even consider the fact that his music has caught on more than others' precisely because of this.

Aigner doesn't use this argument, though. His assertion centers on the fact that Tomlin's Amazing Grace (My Chains Are Gone) hits a "high G" in its refrain. That's factually inaccurate. Tomlin's refrain, one he tagged onto the beloved hymn, makes use of a high F, a whole step down from the G to which Aigner is referring. Most basses are going to drop the melody down an octave anyway. Most altos are going to sing it in octaval unison with the tenors (Tomlin, for instance) and the sopranos will sing it just as normal. A G above middle C is unattainable for most baritones, relatively high for most tenors and sopranos, and right in line with with altos. An F (the actual pitch Tomlin sings) is a more agreeable pitch simply because it finds itself below most sopranos' and tenors' passaggios, reachable for baritones, and again in line with an alto melody. I'd criticize Tomlin for writing a G too.  But he didn't write a G. He wrote an F.

Aigner also references the problem of the "solo" worship leader. He remarks that Tomlin's vocal stylings do not allow for congregational singing, instead presenting the congregation with the opportunity to merely sing along. It's true that our modern worship culture doesn't see anything wrong with worshipful singing being described as singing along, but to attribute this solely to Tomlin is unfair. To critique this on the basis of Tomlin's musicality alone is worse yet.

Because He Writes Poor Texts

Here, Aigner tackles Tomlin's poetic skills. The lines he chooses to prove his point are these:

1. And like a flood His mercy rains…
2. He wraps himself in Light, and darkness tries to hide…
3. And if our God is for us, then what could stand against…
4. I will rise on eagles’ wings / Before my God fall on my knees…

My commentary on each: 

1. Tomlin's (worth noting that Louie Giglio is also given songwriting attribution here)  obvious intention here is to metaphorically draw the connection between never-ending rain and God's never-ending mercy. Aigner suggests this is a weak metaphor but I've never heard of anyone using a water metaphor for God's mercy before.  I, too, wish Tomlin hadn't used a destructive force of water to describe God's mercy.
2. Criticize the guy on weak and strange metaphors, sure, but criticize him for quoting the psalmist?  No. This isn't a fair critique at all. Here's a concession critics should make: songwriters are allowed to quote scripture and not be criticized for poor poetic skills.
3. See above. I've heard the argument before that this line does not properly assign an object to the preposition whereas Paul does in his Romans text.  That might be a fair assumption but, again, Tomlin wouldn't be the first hymn writer to stretch the English language to fit a rhyme scheme or rhythmic structure. 
4. I can only imagine Aigner's frustration with this line is its imperfect rhyme structure. Ok, sure. Or maybe it's the irony of "rising" by "falling on my knees". At the skin level, the latter critique seems humorous. I think there's something beautiful, though, about drawing the connection between humility before God and rising as Christ was risen. 

Because He Is A Worship Superstar

I'm with the high and mighty idea that those who write music for the church ought to do so for the good of the church and the church alone. Their work is kingdom building work and ought to be seen as such.

But this celebrity-status isn't a new phenomenon. Do you think John Wesley wasn't a big deal? He famously learned to preach to the multitudes of people gathered from George Whitefield. American churches vowed to follow his every instructions(sort of). Isaac Watts trained pastor after pastor at his large church in London. Tomlin may be an overpaid worship superstar but he's certainly not the first and certainly won't be the last Christian celebrity.

And whose fault is it really that Tomlin's presence has the gravitas it does? Tomlin's? Or is he simply trying to make the best music he can for a modern generation? Is it the nature of us, the people, that want to celebritize everything we come into contact with?  Likely.

And before you go on pointing to the "showy" nature of modern worship music as the reason for this, I'd like to point to this, a church organist competition (utilizing the playing of hymns) with a cash prize. So maybe, just maybe, let's step off that high horse for just a second. After all, a quick Google search of Jonathan Aigner's name returns a few professionally-shot-in-a-church promotional head shots. Speck, meet log.

Aigner thinks it right and proper to criticize the work of the church so as to make it better. I'm with him. But these types of critiques of the modern worship world cannot be generalized, must be factually accurate, and ought to be approached with humility. It's only in that moment that we'll actually make any progress as a church and enable ourselves to speak to generations to come. 

-B

Change, Community, Communion, and Curation

It often seems unnecessarily radical to change one's ways of doing things.  When systematic ways are changed, either by brute force or previous failure, many many react negatively.  This is happening in Congress as the GOP-controlled House fights against the already-lawful-and-upheld-by-the-Supreme-Court-as-constitutional Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). It's something different, very different, being treated with hostility because of its difference and perceived (and somewhat realistic) hardships.  

Difference and change are difficult for so many to comprehend.

There are viable reasons for this. Many arguments made against Obamacare are valid and backed up by numbers and inevitable cost to typical Americans. In many ways Obama will take more money from each American in order to make health insurance for all Americans a reality.  It is very different from how America has traditionally treated her citizens since her beginning.  Valid concerns are heard, but change keeps on trucking.

The thing about change, historically, is that it is easily delayed but essentially unavoidable.  It only can be re-steered to go in the "proper" direction. Change is inevitable; direction of that change is somewhat controllable.

[Quick change of scene.] 

As a United Methodist, I have a common joke I make about our church: we are always 20 years behind.  It's only a joke but it strikes a strong chord on the reality guitar.  Take contemporary worship music for example.  Simply put, the United Methodist Church, for better or for worse, ignored the contemporary worship scene for years upon years.  "Contemporary" worship music pushed through the evangelical and hippie-ish movements in the late 60s and early 70s and began to refine itself in the mid-late 80s and early 90s.  Evangelical churches (read: non-United Methodist churches) were often the first to jump on board.  There might be many reasons for this, of which the fact that many of those churches do not submit to any larger governing body ought to be at the top, but evangelical churches by and large beat Methodists to this punch. United Methodists have moaned and groaned about how badly the music is written and how non-theological the lyricism is ever since, but the general public has seen some churches grow and some die.  United Methodist churches have been on the dying side of things far too often.

We are late to the game and they seem to be "winning." How to combat this then? Well, of course: We have to raise our numbers so that our church doesn't die! We must start a contemporary worship service! How then do we do that?  Well let's look at some resources.  Where are these resources?  Oh great, there are tons of resources available!  There is tons of music available! Who is providing this music? Oh! The Evangelicals. Great!  Let's hire a worship leader!  Great! Most of the good worship leaders are at the evangelical churches, so we'll get the pretty-good ones.  They should be able to lead the United Methodist Church into the next generation of worship! Great! This is going to be so great! 

And, what do we end up with?  We end up with a church whose tradition of well-written, theological singing is nearly lost because in the switch to the new medium/genre, we picked up someone else's tradition and theology simply because it was already there for us. We blindly took the cookie left for us without considering the consequences. Change came and we got on board and took the road-too-often-traveled without considering where it was taking us.

20 years behind, then, may mean that we need to curate a bit more than we'd expect.  What's the trade-off of simply using someone else's work?  What's the trade-off for our congregations and disciple-building? Have we fully examined this change, its constant insistence upon itself, and where our destination lies?

The same has happened in online communities.  Online communities, if you can believe it, are old now.  They began, essentially, with the advent of email and have continued to be refined and refined over time. What one sees in Facebook, and all Facebook is meant to be, is simply and refinement (albeit a very well done refinement with its share of quality innovations) of the original idea of communicating and communing online. Online communities may seem like a new thing to people (and maybe especially to United Methodists) but they're simply not.  Hey, United Methodists, you're late again.

And so we pick up where we left off. Many non-UMC churches are offering well-done online churches in which a church attendee can log on, converse with a online pastor, watch the worship service, and even pray online with the guidance of the pastor.  The difference is, of course, one doesn't feel the pastor's hand on your back as you pray; she's generally miles away from you.  This sort of idea isn't new, it's simply new to United Methodists.  A popular church in Florida is doing just that (a high school friend of mine is heading it up...you can check it out at www.engagemenow.net).  

The new conversation (happening right now in Nashville, TN) is whether or not United Methodists ought to offer the sacrament of Holy Communion over the internet.  Practically speaking, it's exactly as it sounds.  The viewer (and I use that term intentionally) provides their own bread and grape juice (or wine), while the pastor blesses the elements through your computer or TV screen.  It's along the same lines as that pastor praying over you but without being able to physically feel their presence...except it's with the sacrament of communion.

Perhaps this is an controversial concept to speak about because many of the other churches don't hold communion (Eucharist) in the same regard as United Methodists (or, if we're speaking honestly, maybe many of them actually hold it in HIGHER regard simply due to their insistence on the frequency of participation in Eucharist) . In other words, maybe Methodists are trying to graft United Methodism onto a medium and evangelism technique that someone else, someone different than us, already created. The difference is that the penalty for moving in that direction on that road of change is a loss of traditional practice that has been important to Methodism. In my mind, it's not much different than us trying to sing that one song and trying to change the lyrics because the song is so...like...Calvinist. We couldn't write a comparable one!  We just have to graft Wesleyan theology onto whatever trends come because we were late to the game and not innovative enough to pull ourselves out of the hole.

Goodbye, Wesleyan sense of community.  Goodbye, Wesleyan understanding of Jesus's presence in the Eucharist and the necessity of physicality for incarnation to be experienced.  Goodbye, sung Wesleyan theology with an emphasis on the unending and unchanging love and grace of God. 

I'll maintain until I die that change is inevitable and good in this world.  But, change comes with responsibility.  Change comes with the need for curation.  Change also comes with the need for innovation and outside-of-the-box mentalities. And, while all those seem so poorly connected, it is indeed necessary that they all work together cohesively so that the good parts of what we have are not lost. The danger of Calvinistic theology creeping into Wesleyan churches--even if only through the music--is, and has been, upon us.  The danger of cultural definitions of "community" and "experience" is creeping in on us and our livelihood is at stake.

Online communities are coming.  The challenge and calling is there for churches to attend to.  People want religion and they want to be online.  Ignoring it seems silly and simply jumping on the bandwagon blindly seems sillier. Change is necessary and inevitable.  Curation and innovation are necessary and often forgotten.

Let us not be so persuaded by a new movement that we forget who we are.  Maybe, just maybe, we can feed a need within our society in a new and better way.

-B

Contemporary Worship Music: Unintentional Ecumenism

ec·u·men·i·cal

adjective

1. general; universal.

2. pertaining to the whole Christian church.

3. promoting or fostering Christian unity throughout the world.

4. of or pertaining to a movement (ecumenical movement), especially among Protestant groups since the 1800s, aimedat achieving universal Christian unity and church unionthrough international interdenominational organizations thatcooperate on matters of mutual concern.

5. interreligious or interdenominational: an ecumenicalmarriage.

In the United Methodist Church, we have a hymnal.  Every 20 years or so another one pops up, with great new hymns,  great old hymns, and...unfortunately...some of the same old, really bad hymns.  The church is trying to be 'progressive' (whatever that means), so we have seen little books like 'The Faith We Sing' and 'Worship and Song' pop up as well.  These are the technologically limited offerings aimed at keeping up with the rapid rate of song creation in the Church these days.  'Worship and Song,' printed last year, has only now included "How Great is Our God" and "Open the Eyes of My Heart" (Open the Eyes of My Heart was written in 1997, How Great is Our God in 2004).

When I purchased my copy of 'Worship and Song' at Cokesbury, the sales associate told me that this was the "first expandable hymnal!"  I asked her how the binding to the book played a role in its expandability and she gave me the scrunched-nose face. Technologically, these books have been limited.

Interestingly enough, in some Christian circles, this technological barrier has played a huge role in keeping the churches singing the same songs they've been singing for ages. In others, they have ignored the technological implications completely.  Many Christians are growing up in church environments (that alone is something to celebrate) and do not realize that Christians used to sing songs out of books that they held in their hands instead of on screens (I'll let you decide whether or not that is something to celebrate).

Long story short: music in the Church is rapidly changing.  Some people are changing it, some are avoiding it.  Others, like the United Methodist Church in large part, avoided it for 20 years or so and are just now trying to catch up. The last category of churches feel a little like RIM and Nokia do now when it comes to smart phones:  late to the game inevitably will hurt, no matter your customer loyalty.

Not long ago I presented a hymnal to a student of mine on which her name was imprinted.  I said to her, "These are the songs of our tradition." Ever since that moment, I've been thinking about what I meant by that statement.  Did I mean that these are the ONLY songs of our tradition?  Did I mean that these are the songs our of tradition and OUR TRADITION alone?  What is it that I meant?  Does that make the songs outside of our hymnal NOT part of our tradition?

In seminary we talk a lot about the music we sing being formative for the Christian journey.  We sing songs pertinent to the liturgical context we are in, usually having something to do with the morning's message.  We pride ourselves: the hymns we sing aren't, and shouldn't be, fluff.

In fact, the United Methodist Church has something going for it here.  Charles Wesley, brother to John Wesley and co-founder of the Methodist movement in England, wrote hundreds of poems.  As the search for a 'Wesleyan' identity is set before us in the UMC, a return to Charles's lyrics are usually appreciated.  Whenever I bring the topic up in UMC circles, eyes light up.  "Yes! That's the way it should be!" they seem to say.  Methodism was blessed from its beginnings with theologically based hymns and Methodists far and wide don't want to lose that.

This isn't the whole story though.  We sing songs every Sunday in Methodist Churches that were written by non-Methodist writers. Heck, we sing songs in church on Sundays that were written by the Gaithers.  We sing songs written by Calvinist predestinarians.  We sing all kinds of music in the UMC, no matter how much we pride ourselves in being 'Wesleyan.'

I was thinking about all of this, trying to put these pieces together in my head, so that I could sort out the proper course of action. Then I had this thought: We're not seeing this hangup with many who are writing music for the masses today.

No, in fact, these hangups of being strictly 'Wesleyan' don't matter to many.  The people who are constantly writing new, exciting, progressive, worship music are largely from non-denominational churches. These churches usually have some sort of vague mission statement and clearly defining themselves is not something they do!  The popular people writing music these days for the 'contemporary worship' setting are largely tied to movements.  Is Hillsong a movement or a church?  Yes.  Is Passion a movement or a church?  Yes.  What do these movements do? A little bit of everything.  Many of these groups don't even use the word "church." Being sticklers for quality, theologically sound music is simply not a priority.  They want music that is exciting and engaging, and the lyrical composition can be what it is.

The question then becomes: is the work coming out of these 'movements' unifying the church at all?  In other words, if those producing material are not hung up on staying true to their founders, are they free to write music that spans across denominational barriers? Are these songs acting, whether intended for it or not, as a form of ecumenism?

These songs, those written within the past 20 years for 'contemporary' worship environments are criticized all the time for being too "simplistic" or "shallow" in their theology. But it occurs to me that this  very criticism might actually be what makes these songs work across the barriers.  Charles Wesley wrote songs that were deeply explicit in their lyrics, calling out church heretics, heretical leanings, and teachings that were against his views of Christianity.  He even, from time to time, called out people by name.

We simply aren't seeing this in today's music.  We're singing statements about loving Jesus, about Jesus rising from the dead, and Jesus saving us.  While they might still be criticized for aligning themselves with Jesus and little else of the Trinity, these are overarching statements that don't necessarily apply to any specific denomination or tradition.

It seems to me that it is BECAUSE of the more universal nature of the lyrics within recent songwriting that these songs are becoming forms of ecumenism.  These songs are popular, easy to sing (choruses and refrains repeat constantly) and when played well, tug at the emotions of those singing them.  In a sense, these songs are unifying the church.  These songs are played in Baptist churches, Methodist churches, Presbyterian churches, Catholic churches, Lutheran churches, and most prominently in non-denominational churches far and wide.

So, are they unifying? Yeah, I guess, in a way they are.  These songs are being sung all over, much like hymns like "Holy, Holy, Holy" "It Is Well" and "Come Thou Fount" were before.  Generalized lyrics and easy to sing melodies.  They surpass and tear down walls of division that have been placed there by theological and political arguments for 2000 years. To me, it's an interesting phenomenon.

See, the technological barriers of printing books has kept many denominations and generations infused with the idea that if it's not in our hymnal, it's no good.  This has allowed for boards and agencies to curate the contents of our singing, too.  But, these groups that work past those technological barriers (we don't print books anymore), are able to stretch beyond that. And, because of that freedom, they've explored new realms of communal singing.

The interesting question is, what if true, studied theologians had done this rather than the guy down the street who played guitar?  Would that have changed the outcome?  Could we have had a more universal set of songs that were ALSO theologically grounded?  I don't think so.  I think the "shallowness" of much of what we see set to worship music today should get credit for helping me attend a non-denominational service and know the music.

Contemporary worship style gets a lot of crap for the way in which it exists. All I'm saying is that its music (one of the biggest reasons it has been successful) deserves a look. A critique, too, perhaps.  But, definitely, a look.

Just some random thoughts.

-B

A Struggling Quest for Identity #GC2012

I thought about writing my reflections on the General Conference of the United Methodist Church 2012 here. I actually did write my reflections on it, for a class. Below are not those reflections. I figured that anyone reading this likely read my tweets and Facebook status updates throughout the conference's ongoings and is also likely unwilling to listen to me rant about something that to them seems trivial. So, instead, I thought I'd present what I see to be an overarching problem with the United Methodist Church.

The United Methodist Church, as it stands today, has one large problem: it doesn't know who it is.

The UMC (then the many forms of the methodist movement and the Methodist church) was both fortunate and unfortunate to have grown up around the birth of America. This means that values based on personal rights and liberties were, from the beginning of American Methodism, engrained into who the church was. To this day, this influence can be seen. The UMC still practices ways of democracy. The UMC constantly bickers about fairness and control of leading ecclesial (church) authorities. Let's face it: the UMC is a post-Enlightenment church heavily influenced by both the good and bad of American Christendom. It is not the Catholic or Anglican church and, to a very certain extent, is very proud of this reality.

The Methodist church in America has been through trial after tribulation after trial after crisis. Methodism in America has dealt with slavery. It has dealt with civil rights. It has dealt with feminism. It has dealt, and is dealing, with homosexuality. In fact with the exception of homosexuality, the UMC has been a leading charge in America, seeking to bring personal liberties and rights to all. It's as if 'all means all' has been written into a little bit of Methodism throughout America's narrative.

But, recently, Methodism has lost its cultural footing. As a church that once pressed the westward American movement, it struggles now to gain or maintain a foothold in what it used to have significant influence on: culture.

Simply put, the United Methodist Church is not culturally relevant anymore. It's not even, as a whole, socially relevant anymore. My diagnosis, again: it doesn't know who it is.

We've seen this before. After Steve Jobs left Apple (mid 1980's), the company began a downward spiral. It produced tons of products. It ventured into commercial areas it had never been. It tried new things without worrying about quality. It forgot the mission the Steves had set out for it since the beginning: make good products. Jobs used to tell this story about when he got back to Apple (late 1990's) where he asked the employees that had stayed why they had done so. Their response? "I bleed in six colors." (A harkening to the old Apple logo) They, evidently in the minority, could still sort of remember who Apple was.

Jobs used to tell this story alongside one about how he preached the future of Apple to his employees once he returned. He said that it became clear that if it was a zero-sum game and for Apple to win, Microsoft had to lose, it was clear that Apple was going to lose. "Apple didn't have to win!" Steve preached. "Apple had to remember who Apple was!" Jobs always said that the only thing Apple focused on was "making great products." That's it. If Apple was under Jobs' leadership, they would be about making great products and little else. Their identity was found inside of making great products. That's who Apple was.

To say that the UMC is not in the same place would be an effort to evade the truth. Little is wrong with the Wesleyan theological heritage of the UMC. Little is wrong with the connectional heritage of the UMC.

What's wrong with the UMC? It doesn't remember who it used to be. It has, because of its love for tradition and unwillingness to move and groove, forgotten that it used to write the American narrative before other groups. It has forgotten that it used to write the culture instead of the culture writing it. It has forgotten that it used to be full of innovation. It has forgotten that it used to be evangelical. It has forgotten that it used to be vital.

The UMC struggled at General Conference over the last two weeks to make any progress toward the future. It chose (because of a host of reasons) to maintain a structural format based off coroporate models that are now half a century old. It chose, in large part, to ignore the essential part of its future: young clergy. With the strange exception of 'guaranteed appointments' for elders, the UMC made very little progress in reshaping who it is and, because of this, must suffer the consequences over the next four years until issues can be brought forth once again.

News flash: four years is too long in today's world. Change was needed and it was needed fast. And it failed, motion after motion, amendment after amendment.

The UMC used to find its identity in strong Wesleyan theology that pushed the culture and innovated before it could. It was able to articulate new, sometimes controversial, ideas better so that the culture understood them in light of Christ rather than in pure Enlightened thought. Somehow, as a church, we have managed to live more into the Americanized version of who we are rather than the Christian version.

The church has simply forgotten who she is.

I fear it will get worse, too, as we become a more global church. As our surrounding culture begins to deal with what it means to have a global economy, it is faced with ways to run the economy. It chooses the easiest, cheapest route almost every time. What a time for the church to lead the way! Perhaps then we wouldn't struggle with the ethical violations! But, the church, forgetting that it used to shape the way, does not. And instead of the world realizing who the world is, the world simply thinks its way is normative. How sad a day.

I feared that change would not come at General Conference 2012. I feared the the church would be stuck in a rut because of its inability to remember who it is. I had little idea however about how bad it would actually be.

'Where's God in this?' you might ask. God's here. Have no fear. The Spirit is moving somewhere. But I don't believe United Methodism to be any sort of sacred thing. It can die. The Gospel will continue on. The Spirit will continue to carry it. The travesty is that the UMC actually has some interesting things to say about the Gospel.

If only it could remember how to say them.

-B

The Death of the UMC #explo2011

I've had over 63 pages of writing due in the last two weeks.  It's funny that we often describe Divinity School as "Hell on Earth."  Currently, I'm tired of writing my theology paper.  Thus, I am taking a break to do this. I attended Exploration 2011 this weekend in St. Louis.  Exploration is a conference for about 600 young, college-aged, United Methodist adults who are exploring (hence the title) a call into some sort of ministry.  It serves several purposes:

• Encourage young people to explore their calls into ministry,
• Explain the ordination process,
• Educate attendees about different methods and modes of ministry,
• Provide reflection time in small groups to discuss,
• Enable UMC young-adults from around to the world to meet each other, converse, worship, and fellowship.

In addition, all of the United Methodist Seminaries (13 in all) were represented by staff and student alike, providing information, sweet giveaways, and advice to potential seminary students.  I'm already a seminary student, but I was not a rep from Duke.  I was an attendee.  But, you know, I wore Duke stuff everyday.

Friday night's preacher in worship was none other than Adam Hamilton, the pastor of the largest United Methodist church in the world, Church of the Resurrection.  Adam has been promoted through churches like WillowCreek and is easily the best known United Methodist pastor in today's culture.  He spoke well, clearly, and with passion.  He encouraged young people to truly consider ministry for the good of the Church. If a quick search of the Twitter hashtags "explo2011" says anything, his message reverberated with a large percentage of the attendees that night.

One of Adam's main focuses: The United Methodist Church's decline.  It does little good to bore you with insignificant stats that prove this thesis.  Instead, this general point can be made: If the rate of decline in membership in the United Methodist church continues, the UMC will not be in existence in 2050.

Gone. No more.  One of the denominations on which Christian culture was established in the United States will have vanished.

It won't have been the first time a denomination that has been so influential in our history has declined. Or died.

Adam discussed a crucial point, too.  He admitted that our goal ought not to be to save a denomination, or religious group.  He pointed out, more or less, that our goal should be to make disciples. And, as United Methodists, we believe that the Wesleyan way of discipleship is the best, most effective way to do this.  By reaching into our Wesleyan core (which, from my observations, seems to be - at the most - ambiguously articulated in a majority of UM churches across the globe) we may discover new ways of changing the world through disciples of Jesus. I agree, but I do think that and established church has at least the possibility of bringing this on (This is obviously widely disproved throughout the course of history, but a man has to have a little faith, right?)

I'll quote Vance Rains here,

Does anyone here, including myself, really know how to save the United Methodist Church?

All I can do, as a new comer to this movement, is observe. I can tell you what I think the church is doing well.  I can definitely tell you what the church is not doing well.

And for me, it seems to be summed up in this: We aren't skating to where the puck will be.

This phrase is attributed to Wayne Gretsky (though I'm unsure if he actually said it) and was one of the favorites of the late Steve Jobs.  Jobs wanted to move ahead. So, to do that, he moved ahead…taking great ideas from other people and fusing them with his own.  Through this, he innovated and created products people didn't know they wanted. Like Henry Ford, he created phones without keyboards, tablets without styluses, and computers without disc drives. Ford is claimed to have said, "If I'd have asked the customers, they'd have said they wanted a faster horse."

But the UMC doesn't seem to be doing that.  The UMC doesn't seem to be taking old ideas, mixing them with new ones, and coming out with something effective. The UMC doesn't seem to be thinking creatively. The UMC doesn't seem to be not only listening and reading their Wesleyan heritage, but synthesizing it to create something that will serve the needs of the world. No, it doesn't seem to be doing that.

And that's ok.  Research In Motion isn't doing that either. But come five years, they won't be around.

Wesley was an innovator.  Wesley was clear about what he thought.  Wesley knew of effective ways of maintaining accountability in discipleship.  Wesley knew of positive ways to change the world.  Wesley knew that the power behind religious revival was in a movement. And Wesley should get a lot of credit for thinking differently than many, many others in his time.

I think United Methodists recognize this. And I do think, as a General Church, the UMC is trying to be relevant.

It's just that our methodology seems a little screwy.

Our version of "relevancy" seems to be based on what the Reformed or evangelical churches are doing. And we, as we always have been, are behind.  Seriously behind. And sometimes we throw resources into the wrong areas.  We staff the wrong places. We don't always hire the best in the field.

So no wonder our attempts at things are less successful.  We're creating the hi-PHONE instead of the iPhone.  We're trying to play contemporary music, but it's just not…quite…right…yet.

I think it is happening this way: through desperation, we are copying others.  20 years ago, we saw the evangelical denominations growing faster than us. So we decided something had to change.  We waited around for 5 years to make a decision to do so and then we got to work. We started marketing campaigns (I would say, some of the more successful things we've done). We started rethinking who we were. Why? Because we saw others do it.  I ask of you: how different are those rethink church commercials, really, than those billboards from non-denominational groups that advertise a "new way to do church"? They're only different in that they are more socially minded (a good a righteous thing), but our attitude is much the same. "Oh, God, they're undercutting us by stripping down some of the perceived ridiculousness of our liturgy and system," we might as well have said.

The funny part is, the ReThink Church commercials are easily one of the best things the Church has done, in my opinion.  I think we've called on people to question some things that ought to be questioned.  It just appears to have had little follow through.

Which gets me to my point.  We copy others. AND THAT'S FINE.  But, in our copying, we aren't thorough.  We write things like "Open Hearts, Open Doors, Open Minds" when large percentages of our church simply don't believe it. We try to be relevant, but many of our churches are much, much older than other churches.  So, we try to do things in our old buildings that just aren't practically possible.  And the product of our efforts doesn't look "cool" like we think it does.  It looks like a cheap knock off. And people, congregants, don't see authentic worship, they see posers (something our culture is less and less tolerant of everyday).  They see people faking what's popular.  They see BOBS instead of TOMS.  They see Samsung instead of Apple. We're ripping off others, and to make it worse…we're not even doing it well. (At least Samsung stuff still looks good)

Instead, perhaps, maybe we ought to truly rethink church.  Not basing it off of our own social values.  Not basing it off of our own bias.  Not basing it off of our own thoughts.  Not basing it off of our own Scriptural interpretation. Not basing it off of our own political beliefs.  Not basing it off of our own definitions.

Because the Wesley that I read doesn't seem to have been ripping anybody off. Wesley seems to have been starting something new, incorporating the traditional values, thoughts, concepts, and theological insights of the old tradition to bring about a revival that focused on holiness in discipleship. That movement is what helped influence the Christian culture in America.  And his thoughts were so good, I'm convinced there's another opportunity, if only we'd wake up.

Picasso said, "Good artists copy.  Great artists steal."  There's a huge difference between the two, and I'm unconvinced that the UMC understands that.

So please, let's not put up a GPS (or phone…we had disagreements about what it was) around the lyrics being projected on the screen unless we're going to take the time to actually explain it, incorporate it, and usefully employ it. Otherwise, it looks like we saw the evangelical churches using the iPhone theme for their events and thought, "Oh, God, we're behind." Which, I'd imagine, is exactly what happened.

If we're going to do it, we need to do it well.  Otherwise, we're going to die.

Like Vance, I don't know what is going to save the church.  But, I do feel as if I'll know when I see it. And I know this from observation: we can't keep following everyone else.  We have never been like that as a church and this is an awful time to start. We ought to seriously rethink who we are, where we're going, and where we've been. We make corrections, we synthesize, and we move on…making the best, most faithful decisions we can as fast as we can. And we have to do it throughly, with class, artistry, energy, and resources.  Every detail has to be ironed out so that what we say is cohesive and intentional. And we don't need to try to be "cool."  That'll come to us, if we are who we are and the story is as good as we say it is.  And, friends, it is.

Please, it's too good of a story not to tell in new and fresh ways. And besides, Jesus is calling us to tell it.

-B

On Florida Southern College's Beauty

I spent five years (four as a student, one as a staff member) at Florida Southern College in Lakeland, FL.  Yesterday, it was announced that the Princeton Review named Florida Southern College as the "Most Beautiful College Campus" in the United States. Good ol' FSC announced it on Facebook  and Twitter yesterday and this morning, it showed up on the Today Show (despite Ann's questioning look and incorrect graphic):

[vodpod id=Video.14362285&w=425&h=350&fv=launch%3D43985296%5E200874%5E225578%26amp%3Bwidth%3D420%26amp%3Bheight%3D245]

Of course, I posted this all over the Twitter and Facebook. Many friends of mine felt as if this was an appropriate time to throw out the, "Hey, looks aren't everything" lines.  I'd like to share below (names blurred to spare the guilty):

All of the above participants are friends of mine, a few of whom I'm very close to. They miss the point, however.

When I came to Florida Southern, I remember moving into Hollis Hall, the dreaded first year male dorm (although I'd be slaughtered for mentioning the D-word, they are residence halls or community living centers, not dorms). The day we moved in, they were conveniently replacing major portions of the flooring in the lobby. Hollis's rooms were small, brick rooms, with non-moveable furniture. I remember thinking, "Welp, welcome to college." My girlfriend (now wife) though, moved into one of the gorgeous brick buildings in the center of campus, where the first year women live. She had a large room, with a giant window to the outside, her own bathroom, etc. I remember thinking, "Welp, I guess I'll hang out here."

That year, though, was the second year of the current President's residency at Florida Southern, Dr. Anne Kerr. Florida Southern's previous President had done phenomenal things for the college's relationship with students and Dr. Kerr came in to take care of some of the finances and build needed buildings.

What most people don't know about Florida Southern is that it is the largest single-site collection of Frank Lloyd Wright architecture in the world. Those people weren't in Annie Pfeiffer Chapel setting up for Praise Band Practice when tourists came waltzing through gazing up at the large glass ceiling overhead. Like him or not (I could take him or leave him), Frank Lloyd Wright is probably one of the best known, and most skilled, American architects of all time. While Florida Southern's buildings are not his most famous pieces, they are fine work and are working examples of quality artistry by FLW. They speak highly of our President Ludd Spivey, when he convinced FLW to come design a campus.

Throughout Dr. Kerr's tenure at Florida Southern, she has made it her goal (through her skills as a fund raiser) to beautify the campus...one building at a time. She's torn down the buildings that made no sense, didn't fit the FLW theme, and worked to build buildings that made the campus stand out.  She's raised money to support the United Methodist Church (and our relations with the school), and she (along with a hard working maintenance staff and generous givers) has turned the college into a gorgeous campus over the past six years or so. As she's built buildings, she didn't just hire any random architect to come and build new buildings, she hired Robert A.M. Stern of Yale University's School of Architecture.  His mission was to design brand new, functional buildings, that attempted to emulate Frank Lloyd Wright's artistic vision, while bringing Florida Southern into the 21st century. He has, and continues to do, a phenomenal job.

Because when you visit a place, what it looks like says a lot about it.

Dr. Kerr knows that.  She gets it.

In all honesty, what Dr. Kerr has done with Florida Southern mimics, I think, what Steve Jobs has done with Apple during his tenure there. She got rid of unnecessary, nonsensical pieces and replaced them with new, beautiful, architecturally-fitting buildings and landscapes that say quite a bit about where Florida Southern is, and where it is going. Because while the outside does not always give us a clear image of the inside, it says a lot about attitudes and forward thinking ideas. I think Duke University's campus reflects the same mindset.

So, does it matter what Florida Southern looks like on the outside? Yes, yes it does. It's not about attracting more students, although that certainly is a byproduct. It's not about "fooling" the outside world. It's not even about getting Florida Southern's name on the map. Florida Southern's beauty is about creating a gorgeous environment where young minds can come to be molded, shaped, and changed. Florida Southern's environment says a lot about the future of the college and where the leadership behind the school is taking the school. Ludd Spivey is regarded around campus as a brilliant mind who brought the school back from devastation in a tough economic time and changed the campus to be the "temple of education" that he thought it needed to be. Dr. Kerr's transformation of the campus is perhaps not as dramatic, but I think she's done for the school what few Presidents would have dreamed possible.

Florida Southern's tagline is: On the move!

And it is a very, very appropriate tagline. I think the Princeton Review's choice of Florida Southern as the most beautiful campus is complete affirmation of that fact.

Dr. Kerr ought to be congratulated, not criticized, as she has done an extraordinary job.

-B

See below when Florida Southern was featured on the Travel Channel (and my Grandmother in law talking about how she helped to build the Buckner Building).

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSjlqERhAq4]

Did you catch the Travel Channel's quality videography at 3:22?

When a Woman Loves a Woman

Well, the trial is over. Because of the lack of updates on Amy DeLong's own website and the slow moving articles from UMC.org, I found out about the trial verdicts in the same way that most of you did. In the same way I found out about Michael Jackson's death. And in the same way most of the world found out that the criminal mastermind who hired people to fly planes into our buildings had been killed: Twitter.

So, though the UMC has posted pictures of the trial, the important worship services before and throughout the trials and sentencing, it is important to note that I, nor many who read this, have any clue about how this all shook out exactly. Some tweeters were there, and helped us along the way but taking their word for it. But trying to understand and really "get" what happened in that church without being there is like...well, a little reading the Bible in English. You mostly get the idea (and even exact quotes) but so, so much is lost. 140 characters just doesn't quite do it.

If you're looking for more "reporting" than Twitter can give you, just check out UMC.org and various other sites for as much info as you can find.

Story, as I hear it, is that she was acquitted 12-1 that she was a "self-avowed practicing homosexual". From what we all hear, she refused to answer some of the questions regarding this, citing that they were being asked in an accusatory manner. I see her point. But I also think that true "evidence" exists that is published by Rev. DeLong that submits that she is "guilty". I'm happy for Rev. DeLong because this verdict means that the person she loves hasn't held her back from pursuing her calling.

She was, though, guilty on the other charge...as we all expected. I think I made it clear last time, Amy broke the rules.

The punishment was a bit of a slap on the wrist but anyone who might have either expected or hoped for something more substantial probably wasn't being realistic. She was assigned to a 20-day suspension (seems to me like a "think-about-what-you-did" scenario) and to write a document for some sort of presentation at General Conference 2012. I really like the second penalty. I think it'll take her passion and put it into a position where it can actually make a difference, and possibly...a change. That's great.

I've received quite a bit of negative feedback in regards to my first post, as many who sit clearly on the side of Rev. DeLong have seen my post as a means of arguing against homosexuality. I wasn't. I was only saying that Rev. DeLong broke the rules. Even in my remarks regarding her baptism, I wished to point out that the movements against her have simply been to maintain fairness.

I have heard many "unjust rules were meant to be broken" ala MLK Jr arguments. Politically, I actually agree. I have made it quite clear that I think that God loves all of God's children. What I neglected to make as clear is that I see, as I think you should, a difference here in the political argument as opposed to the religious argument. The United States says that all are equal. So, all should be equal. Rosa Parks, MLK, Malcolm, X, and many many others fought for this cause. They were jailed for their efforts as well. And they were in the right. The laws of the USA were acting in opposition to some of the founding documents of this country. Many of them cleverly snuck in religious references to their arguments, but that argument was a social argument regarding a matter of US policy and law. It was against the rights of the African Americans to treat them in the way they were bing treated. All men are created equal.

What's perhaps most confusing about the homosexuality "issue" in today's society is that it is once again a political issue on the state side with a lot of religious rhetoric thrown back and forth. Who decides the rules for the country and states? The founding documents and then instances of precedents and bills passed in Congress. Who decides the rules for the church? The church, in whatever way each church chooses to rule itself.

The UMC has a way of going about this. Prayerfully, spiritually, and Biblically: the Book of Discipline is decided on. It's decided on by a vote. Which means that a MAJORITY of the people in the UMC elected delegates who decided to keep the current BOD language regarding homosexuality that existed prior. To break these rules, knowingly, is more than just to say "you are wrong", it is to say "your interpretation of the Biblical scriptures doesn't count because progress must be made." I personally believe that God's grace is available for ALL. The difference is: I don't see where this instance changes that that much.

Then there is the part about Amy's agreement with the UMC. Rosa Parks didn't make any agreement with the US. Because the whole situation of Civil Rights was born out of oppression at the start, it's not even fair to say that agreement was based on taxes and public services rendered. But Amy did agree to something. And the church agreed to something. The fact that Amy was a homosexual was something she knew about. And she broke the rules.

Which is why I think that the slap on the wrist of 20 days does nothing more than show others that they can do the same thing, if they're willing to take the penalty. This opens up a whole new world of interest. Had it been a stronger penalty, two things might have worked better (for all involved): the Discipline (and the inherent Bible-based decisions that have to come from that) might have been put to the use that it exists for, and the Biblical interpretations of all involved would actually have been dealt with in a way that made all feel like their voices were heard. What this might encourage (and to note, may or may not be good or bad...history gets defined by the "winners") is a whole bunch of pastors who believe so strongly in one idea that they're willing to break the covenant they made with the church. To me, that's a big idea. Biblically, breaking covenants is looked down upon. I must be clear: I think is is very, very different than Rosa Parks.

The Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence are very clear in (most of) their language. The Bible really isn't. It was written by many many people over a long period of years; many of which seem to, at times, have different ideas about discipleship, salvation, grace, and faith. To make it worse, church history is even more messed up than the US's history is. It is because of this that we are at this juncture today.

One thing is clear to me, though: in this church trial, no one really wins.

-B

Love Your Neighbor

I think, perhaps, this could have been the kind of work Jesus was talking about. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXf18-3p2Sg&]

Joplin needs the Church. Thank God the Church is there for Joplin.

-B

On "Calling", Servanthood, and perhaps...Itinerancy

In the United Methodist Church, ordained elders practice itinerancy. If you are unfamiliar with the concept, the United Methodist Church's website says this:

United Methodism has a unique system of assigning clergy to churches which dates back to John Wesley and which is different from any other denomination. The system by which pastors are appointed to their charges by the bishops is called itinerancy.  The present form of the intinerancy grew from the practice of Methodist pastors traveling widely throughout the church on circuits. Assigned to service by a bishop, clergy remain with one particular congregation for a limited length of time. All pastors are under obligation to serve where appointed.

And you can read more about it here.

Itinerancy, like anything in life, has a lot of upsides and a number of downsides.  UM churches always have a pastor, sometimes several, and pastors always have a job. Sort of.  Even in the conferences when guaranteed appointment is not a reality, being a UMC elder still serves as a bit of security.

Downsides? Well, that depends on who you talk to. Some pastors will tell you that there is no downside.  Some will tell you that moving often is a downside.  Some will tell you that being at the mercy of a human decision who appoints you is a downside. Some will tell you that being put in a position that does not play into your greatest strengths is a downside.  Others would add that not being able to do much about it s a downside.

Still, most pastors would tell you that they enjoy being a servant. Because allowing themselves to be open to wherever they are "led" allows them to have a servant's attitude and posture at all times. For good reason too, because it is true.  However ascetic that may seem at any point, it is the way and tradition that it has been handled and for the most part...it seems to have worked.

As I often do though, I have many questions. And as most of my questions do, I might piss people off. So? Press onward.

Servanthood.

Like, "choose life", I never like when utopian, goal-centered, life-inspiring words are aligned with practices. My immediate thoughts when I hear this language approached in this way are not that that practice (in this case, itinerancy) is simply a form of servanthood (which it is), but rather that that use of language implies that that practice is either 1) the only way to achieve the goal-centered, life-inspiring, way-to-live-your-life or 2) that your form of being a servant is a higher form of servanthood than someone who might not "serve" in the same form that you do.

Let me be clear: I've never heard anyone suggest this. But, the language-to me-is scary.

Of course, you'll never meet a United Methodist pastor who thinks this way. Well, I hope not. Why? "Call".

I truly believe that all pastors who serve congregations are serving as pastors (no matter what their appointment...even if it is not in a church at the current moment) feel called to do so.  They feel called to serve as a pastor.  In general.  Serve as a pastor.

For me, and I don't claim that it is fair to blanket anyone else in my statements, I don't get it. For me. Some people feel called to serve wherever they are told to go. They do it with a willing heart. If they are specifically talented in one area (let's say that they are church "rebuilders") and they are sent to a church that doesn't need those specific talents at that given time, they do so willingly because they feel called to...serve.

But when I examine myself, my own gifts, my own talents, I don't see where they fit into this model.

When you feel so strongly about how God is using and shaping you, I can't help but feel like even though it may not be as ascetic (because I maintain some control of my own future) it is still a sense of servanthood. And I doubt that many would disagree.  This is why the UMC has an order of Deacons.

So, the main argument-I think- has to do with appropriateness of the role of being a servant for each person, as it relates to their life and situation, and "calling."  This seems fairly obvious. To many, this is the definition of calling.

I believe that God will use every single person. And I think that God will use every single person's talents for the good of the Church if they'll allow.  And, obviously that not only includes pastors but also anyone else who is willing to serve in any capacity.

And maybe it is my own struggle with authority.  And maybe it is that I don't like being told what to do.

Or.  Maybe.  It is that I truly feel like I am talented in certain areas of ministry (and suck in others) and that to be placed somewhere where those gifts aren't being used to the full potential would be a detriment to the potential of what God could be doing. Not that God won't use you in every situation and circumstance, but certainly talents and gifts can be used in new and refreshing ways in some places over others. I think that's what the issue is for me. Find your fit. Find your place. Find your gifts. Put them there.

God uses all in all situations, this much is true.  But, the burn and fire inside of your heart is perhaps a true calling from God, not your own desires. And maybe you ought to do something about it, and stop the ascetic servanthood.

Do what you do, well.

-B

P.S. - I hope this blog post sparks conversation about submission and obedience.

On Marketing the Church

If you talk to a lot of people, especially church people, you'll get a lot of mixed responses about marketing and its relation to the church. Many many people think of marketing as a negative word.  Many many other people think that marketing is a reality, whether good or bad. Rob Bell has a quotation in Velvet Elvis that speaks about how upset he was when someone from the church that he was starting put a sign up advertising the church. He said something like "the words marketing and church can't be in the same sentence."

I bought into this theory for awhile. People have to want to come to church. No amount of commercials or billboards are going to bring them in. Sounds like a righteous argument right? If our intentions are the best, then people will want to come to church.  They will just have to.  As far as getting them there, God will take care of that.

My issue here is that I just don't see it working.

I've had the blessing now to help start two churches. Both very different, in different parts of the country. One has been around quite awhile and has struggled with many issues. One is still pretty new but has not shown any signs of huge growth.  Both have moved buildings when the first wasn't working. Both are in communities that don't allow for signs to be placed on the street.  Both are in communities that have tons of houses that house people that work in the surrounding cities. Both are surrounded by many churches. One committed itself early on to being a "contemporary" modeled church.  The other considers itself "eclectic", merging hymns and praise songs with traditional liturgy.

The second church spends lots of money sending out mailers to the surrounding neighborhoods in hopes of inviting more people to church. My initial reaction to this process (besides knowing that your response will be anywhere below 0.5% of all of the mailings you do) was one of Bell's fancy. Marketing? Church? How can they mix?  Are we trying to sell something? (You can read my take on whether or not the church has products here)

The answer (for new churches at least, and I would imagine almost for all) is...yes. We are trying to sell something. Because the more people come in, the more offering is given.  The more offering is given, means the more work that can be done to advance the Kingdom. The more work that can be done to advance the Kingdom, the more the church can live out its role. Don't believe me or disagree on principle? Ask any pastor who has been faced with a snow day or hurricane day. The decision to "cancel" church for Sunday means one thing: loss of offering.  It is even worse for those years that Christmas or Christmas Eve falls on a Sunday. Some churches refer to it as "low Sunday" (along with the week after Easter) because the attendance will inevitably be down. A low attendance means a low offering. Churches are like clubs, dues are necessary to keep them rolling.

I can tell that many seminarians are grinding their teeth at this point, but it is a reality of ministry. If your church can't meet payroll, you are out of a job and the ministry will inevitably suffer.  I don't care how "just" your principle is.  New church starts struggle in America with the same struggles that new businesses have. You have to establish your product and name in order for people to be attracted to you. This is why restaurant chains are so successful, it is much easier to start in a new area.

So, living into this reality, the next obvious question to ask is about marketing. What role does quality marketing play in the renewal of a church body?

Everyone knows that the best form of marketing is word of mouth. People speak highly of you and people come.  IF what you have to offer is worth grabbing hold of (not meaning music and sermons...although those play a very real role in the attraction of new members) then people will come. It really isn't much more complicated than that.

I recently returned from Passion 2011.  Say what you want about Louie Giglio, in a world that appears like the Church is dying - Passion is still moving. Passion is known for marketing.  They put out albums, books, DVDs, etc. all with the intention of glorifying the name of God...and bringing people to their conferences. It seems to be working too (if you consider more attendees, "working"). Next year, they are going to combine the 22,000 students who meet every year in Atlanta with the other 10,000-15,000 that are meeting in Fort Worth with presumably many more who couldn't register and hold the event in the Georgia Dome. I think it houses somewhere around 70,000 people. We'll see if they get anywhere close to that.

Passion gets a lot of criticism about a lot of things. One of the biggest - money. They market and sell everything. I mean everything. And for awhile I bought into Bell's idea. This is ridiculous.  It is the church.  I don't need to see another video advertisement.

But then I saw this video: [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJnPnXmXk5k]

And I compared it to this video: [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ91eFAoJAk]

Both are simple.  Both have issues with them. One is noticeably "better" than the other.

And it occurred to me: Both are marketing. Given in different ways, both are marketing. Many United Methodists would disagree that the Church doesn't need marketing. But this video was sent out by the UMC. To market the conference.  I mean, really.

The reason marketing is necessary for us is because this is the way that humans take in information. You can tell someone about something. Or, you can show them. This is the role of marketing in the church. We have to tell and show people who we are. You may disagree with it on principle, but it is what it is. This may be unfortunate, but unfortunate is the way we have to live our lives sometimes.

The question then comes down to quality. Quality marketing triggers an emotional response. I think you can figure out which video above triggers the bigger emotional response.

If we confuse the ways of the world's money making with the Church, we will be pursuing a goal that does not align itself with the heart of God. IF, though, we take the principles that the world teaches because it better understands how sinful human beings relate to things and one another and use these to progress the Church, then we may learn something about ourselves and who God wants the Church to be.

Small churches are great. Small churches with clear mission statements are even better.  Small churches that are using evangelism to grow are even better. Small churches that meet solely in small groups may grow in their discipleship, but if they don't tell anyone about who they are, what they stand for, and what they think God is doing inside of them, they will die. Because people die. And unfortunately, the Kingdom work that that church had been doing dies with it.

And it doesn't need to.

-B

IN ADDITION - It is probably worth noting that the UM video is meant to encourage others to encourage young people.  Using word of mouth as well. Interesting use and direction.

Reflections on Duke Divinity Fall 2010

Well, The first semester is over.  EVERYONE has been asking what my thoughts are/experiences were and so I thought I'd aggregate everything here to help out with the explanation.

Here is a list with some annotations as well:

• Everyone here is smarter than me.
  • I remember well the first few weeks when I just wrote down terms that others were using in class that I had NO IDEA what they were saying. It's that type of situation where someone uses a word and you feel like you ought to know it, so you don't readily admit that you have no idea what it means.
• Not everyone here is a Methodist.
  • For some reason, I had this preconceived notion that all the students (or at least, almost all) would be United Methodists in the process for ordination. I now know that that presumption is just silly. There are quite a bit of Calvinists as well. Didn't expect that. ;-)
• Not everyone here wants to be a Pastor
  • As someone who has been quite confused at times about his "call" (I hate that word), I totally expected to be the odd one out who wasn't willing to just jump on the "I want to be a pastor because they give me a job and a house" train. There are tons of students here that want to be musicians and deacons and other things. If you are a potential student reading this and desire to be a pastor, NO FEAR- Duke has LOTS of students who are pursuing pastoral ministry. And Duke puts out a ton of phenomenal Pastors.  But...it's not the end all be all.
• The Undergrads here are ridiculous.
  • Duke is one the best schools in the nation. End of story.  The students here are smart and dumb people simply don't get in.  Your test scores and grades have to be high, there is no question about that. But my God, they are ridiculous. Seems like maybe even more so than other schools. I think it is all set up as a test for Divinity students so that we may remember that they are all children of God too (thanks to Emily Sterling for that reminder).
• Duke Basketball rules all.
  • Go to a game in Cameron.  You'll understand why.
• Classes are hard.
  • I came in as a music major in Undergrad with little attention having been given to graduate work (in any field) and had pretty much figured that I would get a job in a church somewhere preparing worship, leading worship, etc. I didn't read Augustine.  I didn't study Anselm.  I took Greek for fun in Undergrad and NEVER envisioned that I would take it again. Wrong. I was good in music classes. It all made sense.  I could see why things were the way they were.  Not so here.  I often got Church fathers confused with other ones. I often couldn't remember how to articulate an argument. It's a struggle that I've had to deal with, and I think that I am progressing nicely.
• United Methodist Floridians are lucky.
  • There is no doubt about it.  At Duke Divinity this year, Florida represents. Not only do we have a lot of students, we have a lot of good students. Students that are passionate about the Church.  Students that are influential in conversations.  Students that are sponsored by scholarships. Florida has done really well. If this hold true for all the other seminaries, the future of the UMC in Florida is looking up.
• Worship is important.
  • Three days a week, every single week, a worship service is held in the middle of the day in Goodson Chapel. They are all well attended.  They have different styles of music.  They have different styles of preaching.  They have different contents.  You never know what you are going to get, but you always get what you need.  There are no classes during this time.  It is as if the school stops to worship as a community.  Professors, students, staff, everyone. Pretty cool.
• Above all else, it is a community.
  • Middlers (second years) know what Juniors (first years) go through. Same is true of the seniors to Middlers.  They help out, they offer advice, they offer study guides, they cheer you on (quite literally). You don't feel as if the PhD students don't like you. They chat with you in the hallway.  They stop and grab cake before the OT11 exam. They friend you on Facebook.

I've thoroughly enjoyed the first semester.

Were there days I thought about dropping out and going to get a job in a church? Yes.

Were there days that I was frustrated? Yes.

Was I exhausted? Yes.

Were there times that I was unprepared? Yes.

Were there times when I thought I had nailed a concept and had gotten it all wrong? Yes.

Were there times when I was embarrassed? Yes.

But, it is still worth it.

Fight the good fight.

If our God is for us, who could ever stop us? If our God is with us, what could stand against?

-B

Does The Church Have Products?

A few weeks back, I wrote this on my Facebook wall:

When Steve Jobs returned to Apple, he took the entire museum of old Apple computers and gave it to Stanford in an effort to stop looking back and start looking forward. No longer did Apple worry about what had happened but it began to focus on who it was and where it was going to go. Perhaps it is time for us in the Church to tear down our traditions and reevaluate them. Let's simplify our products and figure out what the Church is. What would it look like if every church tore down its walls and started over? It would send a message for sure.

The question posed saw more responses than I imagined. (I won't include a permalink to the conversation because Facebook's privacy policies are iffy at best and I haven't asked permission to post any one person's comments.)

The part that I choose to focus on here is: "Perhaps it is time for us in the Church to tear down our traditions and reevaluate them. Let's simplify our products and figure out what the Church is."

In order to understand this fully, you'll need to understand a few things:

1) I'm slightly obsessed with Apple Inc.'s product line.

2) I'm significantly impressed with the work that Steve Jobs has done at Apple. (and much of that respect leads to number one being a reality)

3) I get criticized quite a bit for being so Apple centric. (It's ok, courage of my own convictions)

4) I think quite a bit about the dying mainline churches and what might save them.

You'll also need to understand the history of Apple Inc. (formerly Apple Computer, Inc.) and the highs and lows that the company has been through. If you aren't that up to date, don't worry, you can get the basics here. The important part is that Steve came back and revamped much of the company to turn it into what it is today.

My question posed above resulted in several responses both on Facebook and in person(reminder: name omitted):

"Steve Jobs isn't Jesus"

"Is the church a product?"

"The Church does not have "products;" the Church is not something that can be marketed."

"I'm not sure how [John] Wesley would have felt about the church having products..."

"I'm game."

"The church absolutely is marketable if that means sharing via medium other than word of mouth although you can certainly say that inevitably has flaws also."

"Bryant, you love Apple too much."

"Rather than us forming the Church into what we think it should be, we should be asking the questions about why we haven't allowed the Church to form us."

There were more, but now you have an assortment.

In trying to understand this more fully, I did some thinking and ended up at my bookshelf. I noticed that there were a lot of books on it that had to do with the Church and in one way or another the world (and therefore, the Church's relationship to it). I took a picture of all of them.

There are lots more. Written by all kinds of people: bloggers, Pastors, missionaries, seminary professors, and Apostles.

As far as I can see it, the question of "Does The Church Have Products?" stems off of this struggle with where the Church fits into our everyday lives. In the midst of the dying Church (some stats peg the United Methodist Church to have lost 6 million in membership over the past 50 years), we question whether the Church is still "relevant" to our lives.  The body of Christ-as a whole-has responded by creating magazines to investigate this, commercials to combat this, and books (see above) to discuss this.

Naturally, churches have moved to worldly ways of getting the word out about their relevancy in order to attract new people. As a result, we have seen the rise of a few things: Contemporary worship music (no longer boring services), stylish preachers (think gel'd hair and tight jeans), new looking buildings (the warehouse look is in), and advertisements on billboards (we all know who the churches with the money are).

This is scary to many. Especially (as I am learning) to seminary students.

Because here we are learning about the history of the Church, the mistakes and progression its made, and somehow this new fangled worldly marketing is scary. Rob Bell even mentioned in his book Velvet Elvis that he was appalled when he saw a sign advertising his new church.

"The thought of the word church and the word marketing in the same sentence makes me sick."

Rob Bell argued that people had to "want" to find the church. they had no advertisements, no flyers, no promotions, no signs.

The first week they had 1000 people in attendance. (People on Amazon.com's reviews of the book argue that Bell came from another giant church as an associate and so his name was probably already known to the area and his follower base was already there.  I can't vouch for those facts because I simply don't know, but it would explain quite a bit)

The bigger issue to me is not the marketing. I agree with Bell that if we break down our evangelism into "marketing", we have missed the boat. But that doesn't mean that the Church doesn't have products.

The obvious answer to whether or not the Church has products is "Yes, it does."  For better or worse, it does. Products, as I see it, are the things that come out of the Church.  The things that the Church produces.  Perhaps we should stop and look at some of the products of the Church (as as to convince you more fully): pastors, businessmen, bad theology, good theology, morally responsible citizens, not-so-morally responsible citizens, worship music, "non-worship" music, art, advertising, love for the marginalized, hate for the marginalized, etc.

Things come out of the Church. Because the Church is a body of people. And bodies of people exist for a reason (whether or not they are aware of it). From our own nature, we exist to produce. And so, we have products.

Here's where Steve hit it on the head in his return to Apple.  Apple had too many products.  One of the famous stories centered around Apple's printer production.  He asked, "our printers suck, why are we making them?" They stopped making them. They later gave up on the Newton project because Steve said "handwriting is the slowest form of input". When something wasn't working, they gave it up.  The started again and worked on it until was good. Then, when they debuted it again, they told people about it. And, because it was worth having, people flocked to it. In a mixture of simplifying and revamping, Apple turned around from being nearly bankrupt to being the powerhouse and influence that it is today. That's how the Newton turned into the iPhone.

So the Church has products. But the products aren't what we tell people about. Or at least maybe we shouldn't. Jesus is what we tell people about. Or what we should tell people about.

Here's my proposition: Jesus isn't the Church's product.  To say that he is would be to commit heresy. But, our perception and portrayal of Jesus IS a product of the Church. And sometimes, that is messed up. So perhaps we need to examine how we are portraying both Jesus and ourselves to the world. If we can re imagine a better way to be the Church and the body of Christ, we could score big. Maybe then evangelism would be what it needs to be.  Maybe then disciples would be created instead of just church attendees. Maybe then people would fall in love with Jesus through the Church instead of falling in love with the music.

Of course the Church has products. If it didn't, it wouldn't contribute to the world. That would be a shame.

Evangelism is the key to the Church's growth.  Proper evangelism comes from discipleship. All these things take care of each other. We ought to be more aware of how progression in culture effects us and what we can glean from it in order to better ourselves. The Church is a God-ordained body that exists to spread his name and glory so that more may grow in their pursuit of Christ-like life and perfection. But it is made up of imperfect humans that try their best. Sometimes, we just have to be realistic and trust that God will work through our imperfect products.

-B

P.S. - I've had the opportunity to help start two churches now from scratch. We talk about marketing in a live or die fashion. These churches cannot exist without people knowing about them. Word of mouth is great (and the best form of spreading the news) but sometimes isn't enough. We aren't looking to be huge, we aren't looking to be a mega-church, we are looking to survive. Many who have argued against me (though admittedly not all) have not started a church from scratch. I would highly recommend that those who have not had that opportunity, need to have it. It is an important experience full of highs and lows. For those who think they know the "right path", it is a nice reality check.